Maldives Independent
°C
Explainer

Unpacking the Maldives Supreme Court purge

Two justices were impeached in the face of widespread international criticism.

Artwork: Dosain

Artwork: Dosain

18 May, 5:01 PM

Ahmed Naish and Hassan Moosa

What happened?

Supreme Court justices Dr Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir were impeached on May 14. 
Following a recommendation by the Judicial Service Commission for their dismissal over alleged ethical misconduct, 68 MPs voted in favour and 11 MPs voted against their removal. 
The tally was well above the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. The ruling People’s National Congress has a 75-seat supermajority in the 93-member house.

What led to the dismissals?

In November 2024, the PNC supermajority hastily inserted anti-defection provisions into the constitution. The amendments effectively empowered political parties to remove lawmakers at will. According to the new rules, MPs elected on political party tickets will be disqualified upon switching parties or following resignation or expulsion from their party.
The floor-crossing prohibition consolidated President Dr Mohamed Muizzu’s power with control over the legislature. 
When a former lawmaker petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the anti-defection provisions, Attorney General Ahmed Usham assured the president that the case would be dismissed, government sources told the media. The apex court lacked the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments duly passed by a three-quarters majority of parliament, he argued. 

What triggered the crisis?

The Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the case on February 18.
On February 26 – about 15 minutes before a hearing was scheduled to begin over a stay order halting enforcement of the anti-defection provisions – the JSC abruptly suspended justices Azmiralda, Mahaz and Husnu Suood. 
Lawyers and observers were already inside the Supreme Court when the hearing was canceled. The suspensions derailed the legal challenge as five justices are required to hear constitutional cases.
"The current leadership was very critical of the Supreme Court. However, even after 14 months in power, they had no issues with the Supreme Court justices. But they began the process of removing judges due to fears that President Muizzu could lose control of the PNC and parliament," a government official explained to Adhadhu.

What were the grounds for the disciplinary action? 

The suspensions came after the Anti-Corruption Commission notified the judicial watchdog of an ongoing criminal investigation against the justices, according to the JSC, which referred to a legal requirement to temporarily relieve judges of duty when they are placed under investigation.
Azmiralda, Mahaz and Suood learned of the suspension when the media broke the news. Later in the day, the JSC emailed notice of the suspensions and disciplinary proceedings to all three justices. 
Suood resigned in protest on March 4.

What was the ACC case?

The anti-corruption watchdog “manufactured” the case to provide a pretext for the suspensions, Dr Azmiralda’s lawyer contends. Both the ACC and JSC refused to share documents related to the purported criminal investigation. 
The suspensions were based on a letter signed by ACC President Adam Shamil and delivered by hand to the JSC. Unlike official correspondence exchanged through the “Government E-letter Management System” (GEMS), the ACC letter did not have a reference number, according to Dr Azmiralda’s lawyer.
The ACC investigation concerned alleged influence exerted by then-Justice Azmiralda over criminal court judges, she learned on March 6. However, the ACC’s notification to the JSC came at the preliminary stage before the commission could decide whether to proceed with a probe, prompting Dr Azmiralda’s lawyers to file complaints accusing ACC President Shamil of abuse of power.  

What were Azmiralda and Mahaz accused of?

The JSC conducted parallel investigations on the same case. Justice Azmiralda was alleged to have influenced judges to secure the release of her husband, Dr Ismail Latheef, who was arrested at a massage parlour on December 4, 2024.
Justice Mahaz was accused of calling a criminal court judge to inquire about the detention.

What actually happened with Dr Latheef's arrest?

According to Dr. Azmiralda's legal team:

Dr Latheef, an anesthesiologist at the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, visited a registered spa for a massage after pulling a muscle in his back.

Police raided the spa, alleging staff engaged in sexual activities with customers for money.

Dr Latheef was initially going to be released but was formally arrested nearly three hours after being detained.

At 10:30am on the following morning, a criminal court judge ordered Dr Latheef's release.

Justice Mahaz called a criminal court judge after Dr Latheef had already been released.

Phone records show the first direct communication between Azmiralda and Mahaz occurred at 6:28pm on December 5, hours after Dr Latheef's release.

Did the JSC follow due process?

Dr Azmiralda’s lawyer flagged several procedural irregularities:

After refusing to open proceedings to the public, the JSC denied Justice Azmiralda's lawyer the right to speak on her behalf during closed-door hearings.

All three criminal court judges involved testified that no attempt was made by either justice to exert influence, yet the JSC report claimed otherwise.

Parliament's judiciary committee rejected proposals to summon the justices to defend themselves.

Fathimath Filza, the counsel general of parliament, advised that the JSC had not followed due process when initiating disciplinary proceedings, as they began without the necessary sign-off from the commission's committee as mandated under the JSC Act.

What was the international response?

Echoing domestic condemnation, the case drew widespread international criticism. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers raised concerns over the disciplinary proceedings, which “appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence and in accordance with fair procedures guaranteeing objectivity and impartiality as provided for by the constitution or the law.” 
The Bar Association of India, LAWASIA, the Nepal Bar Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association joined the chorus of concern over the lack of transparency, procedural fairness, and the potential erosion of judicial independence.
“The latest democratic backsliding has the potential to jeopardise years of progress in the Maldives,” Transparency International warned. “The Maldives cannot be a rights-respecting country so long as the courts are not able to independently rule on critical constitutional issues,” the Asia director of Human Rights Watch observed.

What did the government say?

At his 15-hour press conference on May 3, President Muizzu denied interfering with the judiciary. The replacement of his representative on the 10-member JSC – who was part of the three-member JSC investigation committee – days before the probe was a “coincidence,” he insisted.
Last week, Attorney General dismissed allegations of intimidating Justice Azmiralda through an intermediary. He characterised the communications as "casual remarks" to a mutual friend.
However, according to Dr Azmiralda’s lawyer:

On February 8, 2025, the Attorney General sent a message to Justice Azmiralda via an intermediary, stating the President was "deeply concerned" about the constitutional challenge.

The message mentioned that the JSC could probe allegations about Justice Azmiralda exerting influence to get her husband released.

More recently, Foreign Minister Dr Abdulla Khaleel accused the opposition of misleading the international community.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court cannot resume hearings on this case until it has at least five justices. On Saturday, the JSC invited applications to fill the two vacancies on the bench. 
Explore more